Post navigation

28 thoughts on “More Scientists”

I would be more concerned with the quality of students we are graduating than the quantity.

In a sense, you could argue that high schools aren’t teaching science at all. They teach scientific facts and theories, yes, but what about the process of science? the “experiments” performed in laboratories are generally demonstrations of known principles. Very seldom are students given the opportunity to perform a genuine experiment that adds to the base of human knowledge. (At least, not in regular classwork. Extracurricular activities like science fairs are another matter.)

That’s not surprising, since most science teachers have never had any sort of research experience. How could they teach something they’ve never done?

That is a shame, because opportunities for nonprofessional scientists to engage in research projects are more common than ever. It seems to me that it should be a requirement for every K-12 science teacher to be actively engaged in some sort of citizen-science project, just as every university professor is expected to engage in some sort of professional research project. Then, they could begin to share that experience with their students.

If a quantitative shortage of scientists really exists, maybe it’s about demand rather than supply. Maybe young Americans don’t want to become scientists and engineers, because it’s not cool.

The US has no trouble producing all the lawyers, doctors, TV & film actors, football players, rock stars, pimps and drug dealers it needs. Maybe that’s because those professions tend to be well paid and, at least within certain communities, of high social status. Some of them have high barriers to entry, yet many people are willing to overcome the barriers with little government encouragement.

If the US really does want more scientists and engineers, maybe it needs to demonstrate that in how it rewards them.

Yep, compare the job openings/pay for scientists to other professionals and what you see is a really a labor market issue. I know in my case I started out wanting to be an astronomer, then when I saw the poor pay and market for folks in Astronomy I switched first to mining engineering, found job prospects no better and very cyclical, then switched to business where I now make a solid six figure income. By contrast a friend of mine at Tech who stuck with it and received a Ph.D. in Astronomy from NMT is now a high school teacher in California, the best job he was able to get with his Ph.D. Science is much like sports, its pushed heavily and a few talented ones make it big, but the rest don’t because the jobs are simply not there for them. So why would any rational student select that career path?

BTW I still enjoy reading up on astronomy and still view the stars regularly.

a friend of mine at Tech who stuck with it and received a Ph.D. in Astronomy from NMT is now a high school teacher in California, the best job he was able to get with his Ph.D.

I would not consider that a bad thing. A Ph.D. astronomer is likely to be a better teacher than someone with a Ph.D. in education. The lack of a university affiliation needn’t prevent him from pursuing research interests, either. Many important astronomical discoveries in the past have been made by high-school teachers, etc., and it’s easier than ever for nonprofessionals to get access to professional-quality data.

Astronomy jobs have always been hard to come by, especially at the university level. Consider the student/faculty ratio in an astronomy program. As in any field, only a small number of the students will go on to become professors. Some might go to work for NASA but more will find jobs in planetaria, public observatories, high-schools, science centers, etc.

True he has been able to make a living at it, just like the former college athletes now working as a gym teachers, but it wasn’t his dream to teach high school. He was inspired by Project Apollo to study astronomy and I am sure his negative personal experience impacts his advice to high school students thinking about careers in science.

He was also fortunate in that he went to college when the government was still big on funding students with grants/work study instead of student loans, so he was able to pay off his loan on a teacher’s salary. But pity today’s poor science graduate with student loans in six figures looking for a job to pay them off. So its not any surprise to me the best and brightest are going into fields like accounting, marketing, law, etc. where they will earn enough to pay off their loans and still have a comfortable lifestyle instead of going into science. And that U.S. firms are off sourcing their R&D to Asian nations where engineers and scientists are available at a fraction of the labor costs their U.S. counter parts.

There are student loan debt forgiveness rules for teachers in critical areas and the rules for payback have changed for those with federal student loans. They can run up a big debt and their payments will be capped at a percentage of their income for no more than 20 years. After that, any remaining balance is forgiven. There goes any incentive to keep student loan debt low.

That may be true and acceptable for those with a strong calling to be a scientist, but again, why would anyone wishing to maximize their return on their college investment pursue astronomy as a field of study? And let’s not go into how many scientists, especially astronomers, are completely dependent on government entitlements (i.e. federal research grants) to even have a career. The recent screams with the proposed OMB cuts to NASA funding for Mars research is a good example.

Any amateur can set up a telescope powerful enough to do some credible astronomy. In fact, astronomy is one of the few scientific domains where amateurs continue to make real contributions such as the discovery of comets. To do the real cutting edge stuff requires very expensive equipment that’s often the domain of governments. It would seem to me that anyone intelligent enough to become as astronomer would be smart enough to know his job prospects. With the level of automation that’s now possible, it might be the case that the number of astronomy jobs may well decrease in the future. It’s hard to tell since they keep building ever more powerful instruments. How many state of the art terrestrial telescopes could’ve been built for the billions in overruns on the JWST?

Sooner or later, we’re going to realize that America is just about bankrupt. With the national debt at $15 trillion and with trillion dollar deficits forecast as far as the eye can see, the day will soon come when we realize we can’t keep spending money the way we do. When that day arrives, there are going to be a lot of things we find we’ll have to do without. It’s likely that only those things that meet immediate needs will be funded. Science will be one of many things that gets cut. There’s no way around it.

Okay, so your friend’s life was ruined because he couldn’t find a job as a professor. By that logic, most students in every field face a life of ruin. Very few law students (for example) go on to become law professors. Or even aspire to do so. Astronomy is actually unusual in that there are very few fields where becoming a professor is considered the peak of the professional.

Having said that, employment prospects for astronomers are not as bleak as you suggest. Cal Tech reports that 47% of their PhD astronomy graduates become university professors. The national average is 34%. Another 34% find staff jobs at observatories or national laboratories.

Those look like pretty good odds to me. I was surprised to find the numbers were that high.

I suspect most lawyers go to school to become lawyers, versus taking the pay cut that would go with being a law professor, even at the top schools. I know that is the case with accountants and we recently suspended our search for a new accounting professor when it was clear that the salaries the state permits us to offer would far too low to expect to hire one.

As for your figures on astronomers, that still implies at least 32% don’t find any openings. If there were a shortage of scientists I would expect that number to be near zero, after all that is what a shortage is, more openings then qualified workers to fill them. So your figures simply prove the point that based on the salary and employment rates the labor market is signaling there is actually a surplus of scientists, or at least astronomers, being produced. So why encourage more to enter the field?

Tom, the six-figure income you’ve quoted for faculty members would be considered quite generous by most accountants I know. The average annual salary for US accountants was $67,430 in 2009.

Finding someone willing to move to Elko is probably a bigger problem. I suggest you try the accounting department at the local casinos.

As for astronomy, I think it’s your perception that’s been skewed by Project Apollo more than the job market. Astronomy has historically been largely the province of amateur scientists and wealthy patrons — long before Project Apollo. The idea that there’s something wrong with an astronomer having a day job would have seemed quite bizarre to Percival Lowell.

The figure you quote is for CPAs. I do use local CPAs as adjuncts to teach the introductory classes, but I need an individual with more depth for the advance courses.

Most states require CPAs to have a Bachelors in Accounting and a 150 credit hours. Most satisfy it by going for a MBA. Good for working for a business as an accountant and as a CPA, but accrediting agencies require a Masters in Accounting or higher for an accounting faculty so they have a greater depth of knowledge in the theories and principles of accounting, not just the basics of book keeping.

An associate I know just hired an Ph.D. in Accounting fresh out of school, no experience, for 120K to teach at his business school in Alabama. And he considers himself lucky to make the hire as the major accounting firms were offering the candidate much more, but the individual was married and had grown up near the college (their father was retired faculty) and the couple wanted to raise their kids in the same town they grew up in near their parents.

Also the 6 figure salary I mention is more then my salary, it also included consulting, something all schools encourage for business faculty, both to keep their skills relevant and to build networks with local employers. Which is why I came to Elko, to network with the major gold mining firms which have a lot of practical knowledge/experience to contribute in terms of knowledge/experience to lunar mining operations. BTW, you really should check out what the mining firms are doing with robotic systems. It’s really far more advanced than anything space advocates and new space firms are discussing in terms of ISRU. But they are making too much money to waste their time getting involved with government contracting.

[[[As for astronomy, I think it’s your perception that’s been skewed by Project Apollo more than the job market. Astronomy has historically been largely the province of amateur scientists and wealthy patrons — long before Project Apollo. The idea that there’s something wrong with an astronomer having a day job would have seemed quite bizarre to Percival Lowell.]]]

Actually the change came after World War II. Before the war most science was funded by private foundations and wealthy industrialists, which is why you have observatory names like Yerkes, Lick, etc. Some like Percivel Lowell took a personal interest but most just wanted a monument so folks would remember them. For example James Lick bequest for Lick Observatory required that he be buried under the foundation of the original reflector.

But after WWII science became big business with the government hiring thousands of Ph.Ds. and supporting the positions of thousands college faculty with federal grants. That is when the big boom occurred in most fields, with Project Apollo being just one visible example of this boom. And that is really the key problem in terms of both the labor market and future demand for scientists, as Gregg point out, the future of the federal budget.

Just imagine the impact on demand for physicists if the Republicans actually did closed down the Dept. of Energy, not merely renamed it but actually closed all of the national labs and cut off all of the grant research it does. The same goes for astronomers if the government decided to cut back on funding for the Smithsonian and NSF astronomy programs (including its observatories…).

So again, its a labor market question and the current post war demand for scientists has been driven heavily by spending by the federal government. A return to a smaller model for government, as many argue for, would eliminate a large number of those positions as well as cut the number of research grants funding university science departments. Given those prospects the real question may be if we are actually producing too many scientists for what may be a lot fewer positions in the future. Add in that the corporate market may also decline as more firms out source research overseas and many science fields may return to what they were prior to World War II, the demand of a few professors, some talented amateurs and a few wealthy individuals.

Which rises a question for you. Is it really ethical to be promoting careers in fields like astronomy to kids via a program like Teachers in Space given the likely dismal career outlook for scientists?

BTW I don’t like the prospect of government funding for science being cut. Basic research in science and technology is key to creating national competitiveness and has been one of the competitive advantages the U.S. has enjoyed. Which is one reason I disagree with the Tea Party broad brush focus on across the board cutting of the federal budget and elimination of departments without really looking at how the spending contributes to national competitiveness and security. There is a lot of room for budget cutting and elimination of programs, many of which are wasteful, but there is also a need to ensure that the U.S. continues to make investments in science and technology research for the future.

For example, rather the eliminate the Department of Energy I would rename it the Department of Science and restructure it along those lines by building on its existing core of national labs. The Smithsonian, NSF, NASA and NOAA could be then be brought under it along with science education. Programs without a strong science/technology development focus would be eliminated from it.

I would also propose several changes to NASA when its bought under the Department of Science. First would be to eliminate all rocket design and operation. I would leave that to private firms and the USAF. Second I would split NASA into two agencies in the DOS.

First would be the Space Science Agency where I would put all of NASA’s planetary programs and then bring in the NSF and Smithsonian astronomy programs as well, placing them all under one roof. The name basically outlines what its focus would be.

The rest of NASA I would put in the Aerospace Technology Agency. Its focus would be on the advancement of technology for space exploration, commerce and development. It wouldn’t build spacecraft or habitats, but it would conduct basic research into the technology needed to build them.

Even after WW II, amateur astronomers greatly outnumbered professionals. The real change was that telescopes and other hardware became larger and more expensive, which meant world-class astronomy (the type that makes newspaper headlines) was increasingly beyond the reach of amateurs. That is now changing thanks to modern developments in electronics, the Internet, remotely operated telescopes, etc.

The same goes for astronomers if the government decided to cut back on funding for the Smithsonian and NSF astronomy programs

That would not directly affect most of the 250,000 amateur astronomers participating in Galaxy Zoo, for example.

You have the wrong business model. The “problem” you’re concerned about (not enough jobs for astronomers) can’t be solved by just having NSF provide money for a few more astronomy professors. That would only produce more astronomy classes, more astronomy students, and a larger “problem.”

The “problem” is only a problem if you “astronomer” with university professor or government laboratory employee. Historically, that has never been a valid equation.

What astronomy needs is new business models. Sell time on world-class instruments at a fixed price or sell it to the highest bidder. (Some observatories are already starting to do that.) Screw peer review — if someone wants to spend a million dollars looking for the face on Mars or some such nonsense, let them, as long as it keeps the telescopes operating. Instead of decommissioning the Hubble telescope when Webb comes online, turn it over to amateurs until it runs out of fuel or someone can raise enough money to pay SpaceX to go and fix it. Offer cash prizes for significant astronomical objectives, such as the first images of a terrestrial extrasolar planet.

The success of the astronomical enterprise should not be measured by the number of PhDs it employs.

No argument, amateur astronomers, (or citizen scientists to use the modern term…) usually out number the professionals in most fields by a vast percentage. That is what keeps magazines like Sky & Telescope and Astronomy in business. So?

[[[The real change was that telescopes and other hardware became larger and more expensive, which meant world-class astronomy (the type that makes newspaper headlines) was increasingly beyond the reach of amateurs. That is now changing thanks to modern developments in electronics, the Internet, remotely operated telescopes, etc.]]]

True for some fields but citizen scientists never did relax their dominance in fields like variable stars observations, observing the planets for transient events, etc.. Things too routine or boring for the professionals to spend time one. Prior to Project Apollo the best lunar maps were made by citizen scientists. But that is true in several areas of science, astronomy is not that different.

[[[The same goes for astronomers if the government decided to cut back on funding for the Smithsonian and NSF astronomy programs
That would not directly affect most of the 250,000 amateur astronomers participating in Galaxy Zoo, for example. ]]]

But we are not talking about Citizen Scientists, we are discussing those who wish to be professionals and get paid for their work. I never stated that astronomy would stop, merely that many, many job openings for professional astronomers would disappear. And I know all about Citizen Science as I am one, and not just in astronomy. A number of fossil finds I made in New Mexico are in the collection of the NM Bureau of Mines. But few Citizen Scientists, unless they are independently wealthy, are doing to spend their time pursuing a Ph.D. in the field. And the article Rand linked to is talking about the need for more professional scientists, not more citizen scientists.
[[[You have the wrong business model.]]]

The article is discussing the existing business model. But changing the subject is something you have always been good at

[[[Screw peer review — if someone wants to spend a million dollars looking for the face on Mars or some such nonsense, let them, as long as it keeps the telescopes operating.]]]

Yes, I guess consulting for UFO groups could keep a number of professional astronomers employed when the government cuts their funding.

[[[The success of the astronomical enterprise should not be measured by the number of PhDs it employs.]]]

But the prospects of astronomy as a career is measured by the quality of employment professionals find in the field. What you are saying is that is not important, that is the wrong business model. Instead the future business model of astronomy should be gutting the university astronomy departments (no need for Ph.Ds. the citizen scientists have it covered…), selling off government observatories like the ones the Smithsonian operates to the highest commercial bidder, end peer reviewed science and basically turn the field over to folks like Richard Hoagland who want to study the ancient civilizations on Mars and find the planets the UFO are coming from…

[[[The success of the astronomical enterprise should not be measured by the number of PhDs it employs.]]]

Nope, it’s measured by the knowledge it generates, but that is generally a function of the number of Ph.Ds. in the field and the access they have to the tools they need for research. I don’t see where your “New Space” model will improve the field in that regard.

History shows that astronomy is primarily a hobby. Only a few astronomers who are very good or very lucky (or both) manage to make a living at it.

Like art or music or acting.

Over 95% of all actors in Hollywood are unemployed in any given year. Do you think we need a national program to address that problem? (I’m almost afraid to ask that question.) Employment prospects for PhD astronomers are far better than they are for actors.

There are some problems in astronomy that only professionals can solve, but they are only part of the picture. I see no evidence that astronomer is suffering from a lack of professorships. (I would say it’s suffering more from a lack of cost-control accountants, judging from projects like Webb.) Measuring knowledge by the number of PhDs is silly.

You’re also overlooking an economic principle called the law of diminishing returns. You’re arguing for a government program to create employment for the bottom 1/3 of astronomy program graduates, who are likely to be less productive than the top or middle third. Your friend managed to find a teaching job, even if it wasn’t at an institution he was hoping for. Someone who isn’t good enough to hold a chair at Harvard might still be a fine high-school teacher. I don’t see what’s wrong with that.

Regarding UFOs, perhaps you’ve forgotten that Paul Allen was a major financial backer of both the Mutual UFO Network and the Allen Radio Telescope array. And don’t forget astrology, the “silly whore” that paid astronomy’s bills for centuries.

The state of affairs in Astronomy is not much different then other fields. Do you want to redo this thread with Physicists instead? A group with a lot fewer Citizen Scientists since its harder to get time the instruments needed. But its another field where the federal government drives the demand for Ph.Ds.

Also I am not arguing for a government program but simply pointing out the reality that the federal government is the main driver of demand for scientists. Smaller government means less demand for scientists, so why should programs like your Teachers in Space be encouraging kids to go into fields in which the jobs are disappearing?

[[[Regarding UFOs, perhaps you’ve forgotten that Paul Allen was a major financial backer of both the Mutual UFO Network and the Allen Radio Telescope array. And don’t forget astrology, the “silly whore” that paid astronomy’s bills for centuries.]]]

Yes, its interesting how many of the billionaires funding New Space are into pseudoscience and the paranormal. But I guess you feel its OK to promote pseudoscience and the paranormal to the public just as long as it brings the dollars in. The ends justify the means and such. Better to have astronomy PH.Ds. work for the Mutual UFO Network then the Smithsonian.

“A Ph.D. astronomer is likely to be a better teacher than someone with a Ph.D. in education. ”

uhhhhh hmmm I’m not sure that’s true. At least the “likely” part. When comparing a science PhD vs and education PhD, I think it will come down to the personalities involved.

I work with and for PhD’s (Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) and am socially involved with a lot of teachers, K->college. In my opinion, someone with a Masters in Education would have better odds of being a better teacher than a PhD of any kind.

People skills are not a focus of astrophysics and other hard science PhD programs.

To the original question:

I think it’s an issue of oversupply….at least in the astronomy field. There are a lot of Post Docs that simply do not have what it takes to succeed in the field. It’s not a knowledge or intelligence thing but an attitude/motivation/psyching out what it takes to succeed sort of thing.

If all you care about is “people skills,” there’s no need to have schools at all. Just send the kids to the mall.

We’ve followed that theory for decades. The result is a surplus of graduates who with great self-esteem and “people skills” but no understanding of math, science, history, or, in many cases, even basic reading and writing.

“If all you care about is “people skills,” there’s no need to have schools at all”

Perhaps you misunderstood my meaning; and you forgot the next sentence entirely.

When I say teaching is about people skills etc. etc. I mean on the part of the *teacher*. I’ve had teachers who stood up at the head of the class and read the book. You never saw such a bored class and that technique suppressed the urge to even ask a question. Teacher came in, read, asked if there were any questions, walked out.

On the other hand I’ve had teachers that know how to tell – mid sentence – when a student – 1 out of 30 – isn’t getting it and adjusts the technique or method of description to perhaps find the way that student thinks. Even after class if necessary. Being able to detect that means the teacher knows a little about people. Being able to find the way that particular student learns requires the ability to make a connection. That’s the other end of the extreme.

And the next sentence “knowledge isn’t enough” doesn’t say it’s not necessary. It means it’s (very) necessary, but not sufficient.

I will also add that most of the good teachers I’ve had, had some real world outside experience. That’s very valuable I find. Wasn’t necessarily research.

And the next sentence “knowledge isn’t enough” doesn’t say it’s not necessary. It means it’s (very) necessary, but not sufficient.

Gregg, have you actually looked at the “knowledge” that’s required to get an education degree?

At the undergraduate level, students take required courses like Educational Theory I and II, Legal and Social Perspectives in Disability, Substance Abuse Education, Critical Issues in Secondary Education, Race and Gender in Education, Visual Literacy, etc.

In most education departments, there are no required math or science courses unless a student takes a “specialization” in one of those areas (which is not even an option at many schools). Students who opt for the specialization might only take watered-down courses like “Physics for Teachers” which do not qualify for credit among real science majors.

At the graduate level, curriculum tilts even more heavily toward educational theory. Science and math are arguably the worst but other subjects aren’t much better.

I see little evidence that university education departments have been a success. In the 19th Century, most teachers had only a two-year normal-school degree. Nevertheless, a high-school graduate at the time was expected to be able to read the Bible in Greek and Latin. Today, many high-school graduates can’t read the Bible in English.

By the way, how is it that no one ever asks how college and university professors manage to teach without the “people skills” that supposedly come with an education degree? Sure, there are a lot of professors who are bad teachers (I suffered through my share) but I see no evidence that bad teachers are any more common at the college and university level than they are in elementary and secondary schools.

“Gregg, have you actually looked at the “knowledge” that’s required to get an education degree?”

Ed,

By “Knowledge” I meant knowledge of the subject matter.

“By the way, how is it that no one ever asks how college and university professors manage to teach without the “people skills” that supposedly come with an education degree? Sure, there are a lot of professors who are bad teachers (I suffered through my share) but I see no evidence that bad teachers are any more common at the college and university level than they are in elementary and secondary schools.”

I did and still do – most university teachers suck, in my experience. Simple as that. Most (not all) of them (Aerospace Engineering and Computer Science) teach because they are forced to and hate every minute it takes them away from their research. Said research being what they REALLY get paid for, by the way….research papers and grants.

Anyway, I will grant you this, though – that since unionization, and the attendant seniority scheme, K-12 teacher quality has gone down.

All the knowledge of the subject doesn’t make a teacher any good if they suck at interacting with people. That’s all I’m saying. And PhD programs bend people’s psyches in ways that aren’t conducive to being good teachers.

Naturally, no educational system will be 100% effective, so I’m NOT saying that everyone is made better at interacting with people by getting a Masters in education. But people do internships when they get a bachelor’s and Master’s in ed.

I talk about the differences between PhD’s and Master’s. Especially a PhD in a hard science. But I don’t wish to limit myself to Master’s only. A bachelor’s in education has a better chance of prepping someone to teach than a PhD in astrophysics.

Here – just to slake your thirst for a little evidence, here is a description of what you study if you are getting a Bachelor’s in Math and you take a *MINOR* in education at the University of Florida:

“The minor requires completion of coursework in the professional preparation areas of human development and learning, assessment, classroom management, instructional strategies, reading competency, and curriculum and special methods. Students will have extensive opportunities to integrate their teacher education coursework with actual K-12 mathematics classroom experience. This program includes field experiences in local schools.”

Note the ” human development and learning, assessment” – exactly what I’ve been talking about.

If you don’t believe it you don’t believe it, but if you think there’s nothing to be learned of value in Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in education, regarding human interaction skills, you are either being willfully obtuse or unjustifiably dismissive.

I repeat (and for the last time):

People with training in education have a better chance of being effective teachers than someone with only a PhD in a hard science.

If you think human interaction skills don’t matter in a classroom you are wrong.

Doesn’t say that NO ONE with only a PhD in a hard science can’t be a good educator.